181 comments

I heard the Nats intend to release McDougal and use Bruney as their closer.

Meanwhile, with Matt Holliday available as a good, young, all-around player at a position where the Yankees currently have a huge hole (like Tex at 1B last year, though admittedly not quite at his level), Cashman would be foolish to prioritize pitching over signing him. Then pitching.

The idea of trading for a Rule V pick is very creative, but I wonder if the Yankees really have their eye on someone to whom they are willing to give a 25-man roster spot. If not, perhaps, they are looking to simply block a move by a competitor by selecting a player and then offering him back to his original team before spring training? Because simply removing Bruney from the 40-man and avoiding his arbitration payout is a plus, even a small consideration like that would be gravy.

As for the Granderson deal, I think it make sense provided two things: (1) he is not being brought in to replace Damon; and (2) Jackson could not be used in a Halladay deal without Montero and Hughes (I could live with a Jax and Joba deal).

Regarding #1, Granderson makes sense if the Yankees bring back Damon and Matsui. Then, he could man CF, while Melky vultures about 90-100 games (the same kind of plan I suggested with Cameron as the 4th man). That would give the Yankees a more potent outfield compared to last year as well as a youthful infusion and needed depth.

Regarding #2, I really don’t mind giving up Jackson. He is a good prospect, but far from a great one. In fact, you might say that Jackson’s upside IS Granderson. My only reticence in dealing him would be he might be a central piece in a better deal, but it’s hard to really know that.

[1] You make a good point about Holliday. Unless the Yankees are targeting Halladay, there isn't enough good pitching out there to make it a priority.

As an alternative to my #1 above, a trade for Granderson could actually pave the way for signing Holliday because it would give you enough offense to let both Damon and Matsui go. As good as both were last season, and as popular as they have been, the duo of Granderson and Holliday are much younger and likely to be much better over the long haul. The best part, however, is would both be cheaper than Matsui and Damon were in 2009.

In addition, you could essentially move Melky to RF and Swisher to DH, which would give you plus defenders at every outfield spot. Also, when you want to use Posada, Arod or Jeter as the DH, you could move Swish to LF, which means you'd be replacing Melky with the lesser back up (a much smaller drop off than taking Matsui out of the lineup).

Can we really take Cashman at his word? "Pitching, pitching, pitching - then left field" could well go right up there with "Bubba Crosby is our centerfielder" and "We wish Alex the best of luck" (or whatever he said when A-Rod opted out).

[6] Exactly...Cashman has smartly used the smoke screen in the past, so it makes sense why he would do so now. "We are cutting payroll" and "focusing on pitching" sounds like statements designed to create leverage. After all, Cashman usually plays it close to the vest, so if that was the real plan, why would he announce it so freely and adamantly.

[7][9] I do think that's a bit much for a guy who had as poor a season as Granderson did last year, and who might be a platoon player going forward.

Coke, Dunn, and perhaps IPK are replaceable, or at least losable without any worry to the farm system's depth. Jackson is another story, but william is right, the context matters. I'm concerned with Jackson going out in a trade because the Yanks have: a crazy old offense, but only 2 guys in the upper minors who look like for-sure major league hitters: Jackson and Montero.

If the prospects coming back are more pitchers, ugh. But if the Diamondbacks were giving back, say, two good-or-better hitting prospects, including an OF, then that's another story.

As for the Rule 5 1st pick from the Nats - who's available in the Rule 5 draft anyway? Is it possible Cashman is getting this guy because someone else wants that person and it might facilitate a trade? Just considering possibilities . . .

I seem to recall last year, or a couple of years ago, a team with a high Rule 5 draft pick taking a guy solely because they had already worked out a trade with another team, and that team wanted that guy.

[10] Do you really think Granderson is a platoon player going forward? He wouldn't be the first lefty to have a severe split until about this point in his career. Paul O'Neill is a great example. At a similar point in his career, he also was terrible against lefties?

Before last season, in which Granderson was still pretty valuable, he was thought of as a stud CF'er, perhaps as good as Sizemore. Now, after one down (but far from "poor" year), it seems like many are severely discounting him. If I was the Yankees, I'd be thinking more about buying low than worrying that Granderson is in decline at age-28.

[11] There aren't many exhaustive lists available that I could find, but there usually is at least 2 or 3 attractive names. The Nats have the first pick, so the Yankees would first crack. If anything, the return would be likely be better than Coke or Dunn.

Then again, maybe Cashman wants to use the pick to select Igawa so no one else can steal him!

Granderson, last 3 years against LHP: .202 .261 .309 .570
So, in essence, 2 out of 3 games you have a stud (.940 OPS against RHP), and 1 of 3 games you have Molina with a hangover.

How about if we get a MiLB pitcher with these stats:
248.2 IP, 6.1 H/9, 2.8 BB/9, 9.9 K/9, 0.99 WHIP, 1.96 ERA
WOW! Those numbers are akin to Hughes MiLB career.

Oh... that MiLB pitcher is named Ian Patrick Kennedy!
Are we really ready to give this guy away?????

I would love Granderson.
But at this point, looking at Yankee roster commitments over the next 5 years, I believe we will need every single MLB quality 'free' kid we have on the farm, to balance out the huge dollars we have in a few players.

In 2012, we have commited about $120m to SIX players
(ARod, CC, Teix, AJ, Jeter, Cano)
Can we get another 19 players for a WS team om $80m without having a boatload of cost controlled players?

And what about if we do want another long/expensive contract type (Halliday, Holliday, Mauer, Felix, Hanley, etc)?

Maybe I'm looking too far ahead, but to me, it's not that guys like AJax and IPK are studs. It's that having a bunch of 'free' players on the team is essential to allowing us to get the big contract guys.

[12] No, I don't think he is. But from the Yanks' point of view, I hope they view Granderson as skeptically as possible, and project that skepticism. Basic negotiation: never assume the best case scenario, always work under the belief that the worst case scenario is going to be what happens. Thus, if Granderson does turn out to be a platoon player, is IPK+Dunn+Coke+Jackson too much (again, depending on the prospects)? Maybe its a worthwhile trade off for the potential that Granderson is better than that, or because of the prospects received in return. But I don't know either of those things . . . so I say that package is just a bit too much.

[14] I agree with your theory, OYF. But the difference between IPK and Jackson is huge. Jackson is the ONLY upper level OF prospect. IPK is one of many upper level pitching prospects. Nova, McAllister, Kontos when he comes back from TJ - any of those guys could be IPK's equal or better. And there are plenty more where those came from! Not so Jackson and OF/hitting prospects.

[14] Granderson's splits have been up and down over the last four years. If they are more like 2008 than 2009, then he is a star who also runs well and plays well above average CF. That equals a star player.

As of Ian Kennedy, he is going to be 25 next season and has little MLB experience, which means he has been an older player at just about every minor league level. In other words, his minor league stats need to be taken with a serious grain of salt. At this point, he is a marginal prospect and should not be an impediment in a deal for a player like Granderson.

Also, the Yankees have no commitments to Jeter (contract ends in 2010) or Cano (has $2mn buyout in 2012).

[2] I come back to your last point wrt this trade. Without knowing whether AJax + Joba could get Halladay, it's tough to make AJax the centerpiece of a deal for Granderson. I also agree with the comment above that which/what type of prospects we get from Arizona matters. In fact I think it matters a LOT.

Finally, I also agree (I'm feeling very agreeable this morning) that this trade only makes sense as part of a larger whole - perhaps also signing Holliday as you suggest. Or Damon I suppose.

[15] I think Granderson's proven ability is much greater than the potential of the prospects being traded. The bigger questions are on the IPK and Austin Jackson side. After all, I think the Yankees would be very happy if Jackson turned into Granderson, so the only real issue in the deal becomes the money involved (Granderson's salary versus Jackson's league minimum salary).

Is there any particular reason we should lean toward believing that Curtis will figure out whatever Paulie figured out? I don't ask facetiously. Somehow I've not paid too much attention to Granderson and so don't have a great sense for him.

I hear he's a great clubhouse guy. I also see that B-R has Kirk Gibson as his most similar hitter through age 28. That's not too shabby :)

[22] The comparison is only anecdotal. I only brought up O’Neill as an example of a hitter with bad lefty splits who eventually figured things out mid-way through his prime. Granderson is entering that phase of his career now, so if the big hang up is over that part of his game (he hits righties very well; has power and speed; plays a good CF), I think it should be considered in proper context.

[17] Agreed that position-wise, AJax is more valuable then IPK. My point is every kid we have that can be MLB average or better is VERY important. If IPK can be a 5th starter, he is valuable. It's why we have Gardbrera in CF and a BP full of kids. Cashman knows that high paid studs alone don't do it. You need free/low paid players also.

"I think Granderson’s proven ability is much greater than the potential of the prospects being traded."
------------------------------------------------
I AGREE!!!! But......
You are missing the point. Our prospects are FREE. That is why they are so valuable. Unless you believe Cashman is happy to exceed $200m for payroll, we can't afford to pay for our entire roster.

We have $75-80m tied up in ARod, Teix and CC for 6 more years. That's more then 1/2 of Boston's roster. How do you get 22 more quality players for $120m if you don't have a LOT of free players?

It is indeed a delicate balancing act. Payroll flexibility certainly does come from having cheap/under control kids to balance out the many, and now seemingly ever increasing number of high priced stars.

So [28] the issue really becomes whether we think IPK and/or AJax will realize potential. If IPK is a 5th starter (or god help us a 3 or 4) then his value, to us, is extremely high - not so much b/c he's a 5th starter, but because he's basically free within the context of our payroll. And if AJax is - or approximates Granderson or the like overall, then he too is that much more valuable to us than to others. I like the argument. I just don't know the answers. Does Cash?

[27] They both probably will, but at this point, the Yankees do not have any obligation to them in 2012. Jeter probably will get another contract, but probably not at $21mn per season. As for Cano, the Yankees can pretty much decide in 2012 if they think he is worth at least $12mn (his salary minus the buyout). If so, the Yankees are in good shape. If not, they can decline the option and either part ways or seek to resign him at a lower number.

[28] I am not missing the point at all. Prospects may be "free", but they still have to provide a contribution. I personally don't think IPK offers much in that regard and the jury still remains out on Jackson, who will be 23. If the Yankees signed Holliday and acquired Granderson, they would pretty much have the same commitment as they have had to Matsui and Damon, so I am not sure why you think it will lead to a bloated payroll (in Yankee terms).

As for the money tied up in Arod, Tex and CC (it actually is less than $75mn the further you go out because Arod's salary starts going down), didn't they have the same commitment this season? Somehow they managed to have 22 other quality players.

Yes, but his value is very different if (on the one hand), he is the ONLY young, cheap guy we have who could be a 5th starter, than if (on the other hand), he is one of 4 or 5 or 6 guys who could be a 5th starter. The Yanks have a handful of IPKs, or guys who could be him, or better. They only have one Jackson, and only 1 guy who might turn into Jackson - and that guy is 18, was just drafted, and has ~15 PAs as a pro, at the lowest level of the minors (Slade Heathcott).

[29] Yes, I believe Cashman does. Theo CERTAINLY does. The reason why the Sox can compete with us is because they can afford some expensive guys (Manny was the 2nd highest paid for a while) AND they have developed their farm.

However, the Yankees are different in that all other teams WILL sell the farm for a chance to be dominant for a year or 2. Trading HanRam was a good move for 2007, but not a good move for a dynasty.

There were a great number of contributing parts to our Dynasty. They were ALL important. But ultimately, the 5 biggest reasons for our run were (in no particular order: 1) Derek Jeter 2) Bernie Williams 3) God! 4) Andy Pettitte 5) Jorge Posada.

When they were CHEAP, we could afford to go out and get high end pitchers and some other parts. Ultimately, our Dynasty was build ON OUR FARM! And that was when other teams couldn't compete for hi-end talent, and we would always get the Giambis of the world.

But we did have to compete for Teix, AJ and CC. We paid a high price for them. So expensive FAs are now even more expensive because there are other bidders.

If we want to shitcan 2012 and beyond, and be happy with best chances for 2010 and 2011, sell the farm and get the Hallidays, Hollidays, Lackeys, Mauers and the rest.

But if we want a good shot at the PS EVERY year, we must always have homegrown talent. It's really simple math.

For me, the biggest issue with bringing in Granderson is the existence of Mike Cameron. I'd be ambivalent about the proposed 3-way trade, and given that I'm sure I overvalue the Yanks prospects, maybe that means it would be a good trade. Hard to argue with bringing in Curtis. Then again, is:

The money is going to be pretty close, and shouldn't really throw this one way or the other.

Why not just sign Cameron and keep the kids? Does anyone think the marginal gain of Granderson over Cameron for one year, plus the remaining Granderson years, is going to be worth more than just keeping the kids?

Than again, if Jackson is traded, that would make me think Montero is here to stay - which would be perfection.

[34] How do you know Theo "certainly" does? How much better (if at all) is his track record than Cashman's?

Also, your logic is kind of backwards. Because of the current economic climate, there are actually fewer bidders for high-end free agents, not more (if you believe most media accounts).

While the Yankees did build a dynasty around a core of players, it was just that... a core (all of whom were paid well by mid-way through the run anyway). The team still regularly added high profile and high priced players.

If you think adding star players like Holliday and Mauer (in particular) leave you exposed in 2012, well, I am not sure what logic supports that claim. Having the likes of Austin Jackson and IPK does little to ensure the Yankees are powerful in 2012, but signing the best players in the game does.

[35] Cameron's negatives are he is far from durable, will be 37 and has definitely begun is decline phrase. In Granderson, you'd have a good defensive CF'er who is just entering his prime with two very good offensive seasons under his belt. In other words, yes, I think the difference between Granderson and Cameron is worth the kids, especially because Granderson is signed to such a good contract (avg. salary of $9mn through 2012 and only $5.5mn in 2010).

[31] You are missing my point. I AGREED with you on AJax vs. IPK. However, my point is they are BOTH valuable. Also, I believe IPK is STILL our most valued starter. Show me some guys with better numbers. And pitchers 3 years away are hard to bank on.

No question that Jesus is #1 and AJax #2. My guess is IPK is in the top 5.

And AJax does NOT have to be better then Granderson to be valuable. If he is FREE and better then Melky... he is very valuable....

NOT because of his talent so much...
but because of his price.

[32] That's the story Diane. That should be posted on top of EVERY thread here to remind people of our financial reality going forward. However, we have 2 option years on Cano (which I'm guessing we will take) and I'm guessing we have at least 2 more years of Jeter at $15m/yr or more.... so I would add those 2 to the spreadsheet.

There are ALWAYS quality FAs available.
The real question is: Who are the next Core FIVE?

[35] You make a good point. I'd say that Cameron is a one-year guy at best, with the chance (just because of age), of being hurt, whereas Granderson could play CF (or even LF) for at least 3 or 4 years, perhaps until some of the low-level guys (DeLeon, Mesa, Heathcott etc) are ready (if that ever happens) - and with a much lower injury risk to boot.

As much as I like IPK, given the presence of Nova, McAllister, Kontos et al., IPK is just a guy - and so are Dunn and Coke. Its all about Jackson and the prospects received in return.

It took an elbow injury to Tony Fernandez for Jeter to get a shot. Rivera emerged sometime during the 96 season, the primary setup guys where people like Wickman, Nelson and Howe. Bernie had shown up for good in 93 and by 96 was among the higher salaried players on the team.

[35] Also, if you sign Holliday and trade for Granderson, you'd pretty much be set at 7 positions for at least the next three to four years. You'd also be relatively young: Holliday (30), Texiera (30), Granderson (29), Swisher (29), Cano (27) and Melky (25). If you assume that Arod will be productive for the foreseeable future and Montero can replace Posada, then the Yankees only long-term question would be who replaces Jeter when the time comes.

[38] If IPK is a top 5 Yankee prospect than the farm system is not in very good shape. IPK came out of a major college and pitched in the lower minors at ages 21-22. Of course his numbers will be off the charts. He has always been an older player at just about every level, so it is very easy to be deceived by his stats.

Unless the Yankees are serious about getting away from an approximately $200mn payroll, there is little reason for them to shy away from Granderson, Holliday, etc. The name of the game is adding value, not cheap players.

"Also, your logic is kind of backwards. Because of the current economic climate, there are actually fewer bidders for high-end free agents"

Really? So we got CC on the cheap? Or is he the highest paid pitcher in baseball?
Really? So we got Teix on the cheap? How many position players get paid more? (1) ARod (2)???? Is he the 2nd or 3rd best position player in the game?
Really? So we got AJ on the cheap? Look at his numbers. Was he a 'good deal' for 5/$82.5?

The bad economy has made 2nd and 3rd tier players a good deal.
But our guys, Miggy Cabrera, and now Halliday, Holliday and Bay won't come cheap.

So.... we know how good our core was 10 years ago.
Who is our core now?

[43] "Unless the Yankees are serious about getting away from an approximately $200mn payroll,..."
I think that is the money line (double meaning intended).
How serious the Yankees are by reducing payroll and by how much is a huge part of the context in evaluating worth.

Really? So we got CC on the cheap? Or is he the highest paid pitcher in baseball?
Really? So we got Teix on the cheap? How many position players get paid more? (1) ARod (2)???? Is he the 2nd or 3rd best position player in the game?
Really? So we got AJ on the cheap? Look at his numbers. Was he a ‘good deal’ for 5/$82.5?

How many teams were in the bidding for CC, Teix and AJ?

Sabathia was a special case, as the Yankees offer was far and away the better offer than Milwaukee.

[44] You make it seem like the Yankees had to pay more because so many teams were bidding? Instead, the reality was the Yankees blew CC out of the water to get him over his NYC reticence, while he Tex sweepstakes came down to a battle with Boston, who will always be bidders regardless of economic situations. There is nothing to suggest that there is more competition for free agents. If anything, all of the evidence points the other way.

As for the core over the next 5 years, I think Tex, Holliday, Granderson, Cano and CC would be five very nice 30 and under players upon which to build a team, with the likes of Joba, Hughes, Montero and others in the running. Of course, if you had asked that question in 1995, guys like Pettitte, Mariano and Posada might not have come to mind.

[45] I agree. Who knows...maybe the debt of the new stadium has them more cost conscious, but if the reports of the added revenue is true, I fail to see the impetus to lower payroll (especially considering the significant additional revenue from the 2009 post season). I think the payroll is just an attempt to gain leverage with agents who probably see money as no object for the Yankees.

IIRC, the new Stadium allows the Yanks to forego if not minimize their revenue sharing payments (or something to that extent), so I don't know how serious they would or will be about lowering their payroll. It seems that they have more money to play with, especially now that they've won the World Series.

[48] IIRC, Boston was right there with Teix, and there were some rumblings that the Nats & O's were interested. AJ came down to NY and Atlanta, with the Burnetts choosing NY because the Mrs. doesn't like to fly.

re: lowering the payroll - i personally question whether the yankees are really going to lower the payroll. if they are though, one reason may be that hal and hank want to pocket some of this money rather than spend as much as george did - so again pure speculation, but they may feel that they can field a competitive team for x number of dollars less than the over $200M and utilize that money for other things

11:27 Nick Pietruszkiewicz: From Buster Olney: There were execs who were involved in discussions late Monday night about the possibility of a three-team deal involving Curtis Granderson, and one idea raised was that the Yankees would get both Granderson and Jackson. It is unclear whether this avenue has any legs to it. As talks broke up late Monday, two of the teams made it clear they weren't happy with the proposal on the table.
Tuesday December 8, 2009 11:27 Nick Pietruszkiewicz

11:53 Nick Pietruszkiewicz:
From Buster: One of the teams involved in the proposed three-way Granderson trade continues to push the recast deal on Tuesday morning that would conclude with the Yankees getting both Granderson and Edwin Jackson.

[49] That's not really true because while the Yankees can deduct some expenses from the new Stadium from their revenue sharing bill, it is also true that their revenue is increasing significantly. For example, if the Yankees were able to deduct $50mn more dollars from their bill, but saw revenue increase by $100mn, they would wind up kicking in an additional $50mn to the pot. Of course, more revenue is a good thing, but the Yankees aren't getting a free ride. Regardless, your point holds. The 2009 Yankees did very well and should have no impetus to cut payroll.

[51] If they get both, what else do they have to give up? I am not a big Jackson fan, but if the cost doesn't increase too much, he wouldn't be a bad #5 starter with upside (if his 1st half was more true than his 2nd half).

"As for the core over the next 5 years, I think Tex, Holliday, Granderson, Cano and CC would be five very nice 30 and under players upon which to build a team, with the likes of Joba, Hughes, Montero and others in the running"

I agree 100%. I agree 100%.

You have a 'cheap' core of "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others".
Although, without AJax and IPK, I wonder who the others are for the next 2 years.
And this means we can NOT trade "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others"... correct?

And if it turns out that this core of "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others" do NOT become MLB average or better.... are we still contenders?

That leaves $50m for 17 other players -or- $3m/player.So.... you agree that we need a bunch of CHEAP players in that 17?

My 'philosophy' does NOT speak against Holliday or any one specific deal. It DOES speak to the fact that we MUST be very careful about trading top prospects. It speaks to the fact that "Joba, Hughes, Montero and others" are an essential part of a continuing dynasty.

Lastly.... our dynasty core came out of a farm that got a number of good picks over the previous decade. International signings may be our saving grace, as we ceratinly have not had many high picks over the last 13 years. And if MLB institutes a "max price per slot" on the draft, it will be harder to get good talent in the future.

Nick Pietruszkiewicz: More from Buster: The Tigers are the team that's re-ignited this morning's conversations about the three-way trade with Arizona and the Yankees. They have lowered their asking price, according to sources. One version proposed had the Yankees getting both Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson, but it may be that Jackson ends up in Arizona.

Nick Pietruszkiewicz: From Buster: The Diamondbacks are negotiating with the idea that they are going to get both Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. There is growing confidence on at least two sides on the three-team deal that this has a good chance to get done. One source who had placed the odds at 20 percent at 9 a.m. ET texted at 11 a.m. that the odds were up to 30 percent.

[54] Of course you could trade Joba, Phil and Montero if you thought it improved the team, but I am betting that those have enough talent-driven upside to warrant being kept. In other words, the Yankees should let ability drive their decisions, not cheapness.

Your argument seems to suggest that the Yankees have never had success with signficant financial obligations, but they just did win a World Series with big dollars owed to 7 or 8 players. More important than building the farm is making sure that when you do give out a big contract, you pick the very best players. I think the Yankees did that with Teixeira and CC and shouldn't be afraid to do it again if/when the right player comes along.

[58] And Posada was drafted as a 2B, which goes to show you the predictability of the draft. The number of highly touted Yankee prospects who have floundered more than outnumber the ones who panned out (even with other teams), so one has to be careful getting to infatuated by the farm.

How bout this (I have no idea if anyone would go for this but seems like a fun idea):

Make the trade for granderson

then trade granderson + igawa, or some other middling pitching prospect for Halladay + Wells (obviously just to eat Wells' contract).

I don't want Wells, and I don't want Wells' contract, but to be able to get Halladay without giving up hughes, joba or montero seems like a good deal for the Yanks, who are able to absorb the $$. Maybe Wells responds to the change of scenery/race to the WS. Maybe the injuries get behind him and he becomes a serviceable hitter again. He can still play the field. If he doesn't respond well, then he's a 4th outfielder/bench player (albeit a very expensive one) that has to be as good or better than the Yank's past bench players.

It resolves the Yankees pitching deficiency. Then we try to resign Damon & Matsui for 1 or 2 yr deals (pass on Holliday/Bay) and revisit again next year.

[56] "More important than building the farm is making sure that when you do give out a big contract, you pick the very best players."
and, maybe more importantly, making sure that when you do trade some of your best prospects, you trade for the very best players. is granderson one of them? i don't think so.

[66] Is Granderson one of the very best players? Maybe not, although before 2009, I think many people would have argued he was. Having said that, Austin Jackson and (definitely) IPK are not among the game's best prospects either.

Buster Olney of ESPN.com believes a three-team deal that could send Curtis Granderson to the Yankees is ‘close,’ while Joel Sherman of the New York Post believes the Yankees have been sent his medical records.

According to Steve Gilbert of MLB.com, the D-Backs will get Ian Kennedy from the Yankees and Edwin Jackson from the Tigers, with Arizona prospects Daniel Schlereth and Max Scherzer going to Detroit.

[68] i'm not worried about kennedy and don't expect anything out of him. but i think jackson is in fact among the game's best prospects, and certainly among the yankees' best.

you mention here how bad the wells contract is. there's an outfielder who had one or two good years before he turned 28, and then faded badly. that happens a lot. yet somehow the "proper context" for granderson is paul o'neill, one of few hitters who got better in his late 20s/early 30s. the proper context is something between, and projecting granderson to get better when his current trend is downwards seems absurd to me.

Wow, this deal just may go through. I'll just say that, for all the big picture arguement, if you're going to trade Austin Jackson, Curtis Granderson is exactly the type of player you want back - cheap, young, talented, and proven. We can disagree on exactly how well he rates on those parameters, but if you goal is to continue to infuse young talent trading AJax for Granderson does exactly that.

"From the Yankees perspective, this deal is almost too good to be true. Heading into his age 29 season, he’s a legitimate +4 win center fielder signed to a bargain contract for the next four years. I ranked him as the 22nd most valuable asset in terms of trade value in baseball over the summer, and the Yankees are getting him for a variety pack of role players. He instantly makes their team better, giving them a legitimate all-star center fielder who should thrive in Yankee Stadium. For as much as the Yankees have a payroll advantage, they continue to win because Brian Cashman targets the right players. Granderson is a fantastic acquisition for them."

[84] That's kind of how I feel about Granderson too. In 2007 and 2008, Granderson was among the best performers in the game. In 2009, he slipped to just pretty good and for some reason so many people have discounted his value. If he was over 30, I could see creeping concerns about age, but the man is just now entering his prime.

[91] Who cares where Jackson ranks in the Yankees minor league system (assuming he is even #2). Relative value is meaningless...what counts is real value. Jackson's best case scenario might be Curtis Granderson, so why not get the real thing who is locked up through his prime at a very reasonable price?

[97] first of all, because we already missed part of granderson's prime years, and even if jackson doesn't end up as good a player in his career as granderson, he could be better than him over the next several years. second, because granderson might not be "the real thing" you think he is, and may even be a platoon player. third, because a "very reasonable price" is still a lot more than you'd pay jackson. and fourth because jackson might actually end up a better player than granderson.
i'm not saying we should overvalue him because he's the best we have. i think he actually is good. and i really don't understand why wells or players like him (who decline early) are irrelevant whereas players like o'neill (who improve late) are relevant. is it because o'neill was traded and wells received a huge contract?

[99] A-Jax becoming Granderson would be a best case. As for Grandy not improving since 2007, well, in that year he was one of the ten best players in the game. In 2008, he was still very good (almost as good offensively, but his defense took a dive). It's kind of stretching things to suggest "he hasn't improved". You could also say for 2 of the last 3 years, Granderson has been among the best players in the game, which aint bad for a CF'er.

I think Granderson >> Austin Jackson (too many Jacksons in this trade), and so I like this trade. As I said before, I like IPK, and Coke too, but they are just guys - the Yanks have more like them to come.

But what I really want to know is - do the Yanks get anyone besides Granderson? And if not, was that the cost of keeping Dunn?

[104] Granderson is currently 28. The Yankees haven't missed much of his prime. A-Jax would have to really max out his potential to be the same player as Granderson, so I don't see it as likely that he will be more valuable over the next 3-4 years. In the last four seasons, Granderson has had WARs of 3.9, 7.4, 3.8 (depressed by what looks like an outlier defensive showing) and 3.4. Even if he only stays around the 4 WAR level (better than Jason Bay, for example), he will be a very good player.

I also never suggested O'Neill was anything, but anectdotal. Granderson's value includes his current struggles against lefties. My only point was to demonstrate with an example that he could actually get better.

The reason Wells is irrelevant is because the Jays are almost paying him in one year what the Yankees could end up paying Granderson in total.

[110] I think Cameron might still be in play, if Damon and Holliday are still too pricey. His RH bat might also help offset some of Granderson's platoon issues. And boy would Swisher (or even Melky, if Swisher DHs) in RF, Granderson in CF, Cameron in LF be a pretty outfield defense.

Depending on how the remaining pieces fall into place, the 2010 Yankees could have 8 or 9 players hit 20+ home runs.

[109] i only mentioned wells as an example of someone who went downhill in his late 20s. it has nothign to do with his salary (except that the absurdity of his salary shows how far he's declined). i don't think o'neill is any more relevant just because he's a lefty. there are plenty of lefty hitters who couldn't hit lefties and never improved in that regard.

all this said, i do think granderson could be great in yankee stadium. i hope last year was just a small blip.

regardless of how well Grandy did his past two years he's been declining, and he can't hit lefties. Sorry, can't get excited about this trade at all, especially as it does not address any of the most obvious needs the Yankees have.

[112] By the same token, I can name hundreds of "top prospects" who never even made a meaningful contribution. I bet a study of players like Granderson and Jackson would show the former is more likely to perform well than the latter.

[113] Yes, A Jackson certainly has hype and potential, but I'm not sure I'd rely on those things as a marker of his ability. The line of .300/.354/.405, half his games in a pitchers' park, is nice, but by no means marks A. Jackson as a future star. 123K don't bother me, but not with a .105 IsolatedPower, and only 4 home runs, pitchers' park or no pitchers' park.

[111] Incredible to think that in 2 years' time, the Yanks' OF defense could go (if Cameron is signed, and even if not - Melky is a very good LF) from horrible to outstanding. Cashman does it again.

I know what the Yanks got and gave. Obviously, Detroit is rebuilding and shedding payroll. I know nothing about Max Scherzer or Dan Schlereth. What's the scoop on these guys? Did Arizona give more then they got?

[116] of course. but as you have said, it's possible we could have used jackson in a package for a more valuable proven player.
still, it's not the worst thing to have happened. and it might end up being very good. i just don't like giving up jackson.

The only thing that worries me is how high the Yankees seem to be on Mike Dunn. We just got rid of a generic right handed reliever with no control, and we seem to have a thing for one with *less* control.

[120] Gaining two 40-man spots is not insignficant. Like the Swisher deal (albeit on a "grander scale"), this does free up the roster somewhat.

Scherzer has the most upside and some scouts/analysts think he could be a top-line starter (174 Ks in 170 innings). Schlereth is a reliever.

How one looks at this deal for Detroit and Arizona depends on your view of Edwin Jackson. If you think his 1st half of 2009 was a fluke, it make no sense for the D-backs because Scherzer projects to be much better. If you think Jackson can build on last year, it's more of a wash, with the Tigers getting a comparable arm who isn't arbitration eligible.

The Hoss is late but ... he's also seen william and OYF and Raging Tart say most of what he'd say, so ...

I think Granderson is a terrific fit. Even if we spot him vs the tough lefties, he won't be the first guy to have that happen, almost everyone needs to sit 20 + games, and we ought to have a decent 4th and maybe a decent 5th OF. In other words, the splits don't faze me. I do wonder if this means Damon might be gone, though. Melky in left? I don't think so, but that saves 10 million a year. If we chase Holliday, Damon is for sure gone. My gut is that Cash will now just blow smoke on Holliday to keep the price high, and he'll wait till next year's crop of FA's. That's in the field. He's going to chase a pitcher, or two yet.

I'll hope Kennedy and Ajax have good careers and - as I said before about Montero - if Ajax becomes a star, he can be back here at 28-29. That's the NY reality. We don't groom 22-24 year olds anymore that much. It is a hard place to learn the game.

Sliced... As this thread contests, I am very much for holding top prospects whenever possible. However, everything I have read about AJax says:
He was late to baseball, and will probably get better then his current MiLB numbers. However, his current line is nowhere near CG's MiLB numbers. Also, all the news/projections I've heard projected him to be a solid to above average CFer. He was NEVER projected to be an high impact player.

My point was ANY kid who could make the Yankee roster was very valuable, because the Yanks need a number of cheap players on the 25 man roster. His value was his cost. However, I must agree with William that his value as a player will probably not be near Granderson's.

At 28, I hope to hell CG is not in decline. Many players (like Jeter and Swisher in '08) had poor years, but turns out were not 'done'. My guess is CG will be an above average CFer for his 3 or 4 years with the Yanks. In terms of value, he should produce more then most $8.5m guys.

I do believe he is (and might continue to be) very weak against LHP. This might make us lean towards a RH bat if we get another OFer or DH. At this point, I would look for another OFer and NOT get a DH only type. Cameron does fit in very nicely now. Too bad Melky can't hit LHP either.

He might have become something of a shrill for the Sox at the end of his ESPN-tenure, but for the longest time, there was Gammons, and then there was everyone else, and that gap was unimaginably huge (he says, looking at the framed "Gold's Gym" card with Peter Gammons's signature on it that sits on his desk).

I admit I'm one of those who gets a kick out of cheering for kids as much as anyone, but have watched for too long to get into the overvaluing of prospects. If you factor in the nature of Yankeedom, the way the game works in the Bronx, it seems to me the very best use for THIS franchise of young maybe-talent is to let someone else hope they are real, in exchange for established big leaguers who start getting pricey for other clubs.

One of the reasons for this is ... us. The fanbase have had zero patience for even the idea of missing playoffs while kids learn to handle the Show. It is fine to talk about 'mixing youth in' and stuff, but the Bronx is a really tough place to mix in. I'm saying let the kids bring us Grandersons and watch how they do for their learning years somewhere else.

And, to repeat: I see no reason to get too agitated about Grandy's lefty splits. He'll sit 20 lefty games. I'd rather have Melky than Gardy pick those up in CF, but it starts to sound as if Leche is on his way out of town. That does actually create a possible issue in sitting Granderson vs southpaws, because Gardy isn't likely to be a lot better and Swisher is NOT a CF. Cashman's on it, I have no doubt. He may even be more on it than we are!

[145] Gammons of 25 years ago was one of the best. Over the last ten years though, he's become progressively more embarrassing, to the point where he actually used the words "defective baseball" on national TV a few years ago. He's been a joke for years now and it was time for him to go away.

[144] i agree with your overall assessment hoss.
it will be very interesting to see which of the recent grandy seasons are outliers and what he really is.
i would much rather see melky get regular pt than gardner too.

[146] i thought girrardi was getting #28.
you must be excited after the drubbing saturday.

I like the Granderson deal in the sense that it's something new, and could work out well. I still think the Yankees are giving up a lot, but time will tell. This definitely is one of those deals that seems like it could really blow up in the Yankees' faces, but again, time will tell.

I wonder if somehow Swisher does get traded now. Maybe there was something to that seemingly redundant "story" about him being available. Somebody's got to go, Damon, Swisher or Cabrera. Personally, I'd like them all to stay.

[148] You're right, I am pretty excited over the way things are shaping up for the Tide. Bama sure picked a good time to play their best game of the year. I just hope they have one more good game left in them. It would be something if both my teams end up winning it all this year.

That second line isn't great, but its far from horrific, and YS2.0 will help a bit too. I'm not sure that makes Granderson a platoon player, though I wonder if he should hit lower in the lineup vs a LHP.

Speaking of that - does Granderson, with his speed, move Jeter back to the #2 slot in the batting order?

[155] Great call on the double split. I'm sure the Yankees knew this too. Amazing how many analysts are missing this data. Where'd you find it?

Overall, this was a no-brainer trade. IPK was very expendable given how many guys he'd have to compete against to get a shot. So basically it comes down to Ajax for Granderson. Since the ceiling for Ajax is Granderson, it's a move you have to make every time. Even better that his salary is very manageable relative to his value. Even with his "down" 2009 (when his BABIP was almost 50 points lower than his career) he was worth $15M according to fangraphs.

And no I don't see them swapping Granderson and Jeter. Jeter sets a better tone in taking pitches, it splits up the righties, and Granderson's pop deserves men on base.

As a dutiful lurker I checked in here to see what the buzz is on the Granderson trade (as usual, the Banter crowd has surpassed my every expectation) when I was stopped dead by the white hot USC track star in the photo. Who is THAT? It took a few moments before I realized that it's not just a Garbo look-alike, it's Garbo herself. Nice find, Alex. But now I forgot what I was here for.

A few years ago, my friend, the late Todd Drew, wanted the Yankees to get Curtis Granderson in the worst way. He would not stop talking about him. It's been a few years since but Granderson is still a very good player who could, now, become a great Yankee Centerfielder for years to come. He has a great arm and covers a lot of ground. Melky moves to left (an upgrade over Damon, he of the suspect arm) and Gardner will pinch run and serve as defensive replacement for Swisher in late innings.

I didn't think it possible but the defending World Series Champion Yankees now, all of a sudden, has one of their best outfields in years.

Any thoughts on who the Yanks might be after with the Rule 5 pick they got for Bruney? Baseball America notes that the Yanks have only taken a Rule 5 pick in the major league phase once in the last decade (Josh Phelps). And they point out Scott Proctor is available.

They also suggest the Yanks could pick one of their own players, whom they may have left unprotected due to lack of roster spots.

OK, I'm really late to this party, but I can't say that I'm particularly excited. Something about a .340ish OBP just doesn't do it for me.

[89]If he was over 30, I could see creeping concerns about age, but the man is just now entering his prime.

Well, we don't know if he's entering HIS prime, though he is entering the typical prime years for a ballplayer. That said, consider:

.808, .773, .913, .858, .780

Those are Granderson's OPS figures for the last five years. They look to me like a nearly perfect ascent, peak and decline, with the est year at age 26. Such a career is not unheard of. meanwhile the Yankees give up one of their better (and few) position prospects AND their, what, #7 or so starter right now. I'm not a huge fan of IPK but he's a damn sight better than the Sergio Mitre type who will end starting in his place this year when the team faces inevitable injuries or demotion-promotions of starts to the BP.

I don't think this is a terrible move, and it may work out very well. But right now, color me skeptical.

[167] That's a little worrisome, but I'm skeptical about using five years to plot a trajectory. That's too small a sample. So I guess I'm somewhat skeptical about your skepticism. I'm metaskeptical. That word looks so nice that I wish it were a real word.

[170] "Nothing could be Granderson" is very Sterlingesque. Just the right touch of inanity.

[176] I've been off ESPN.com since my Insider account expired..won't miss Gammons and his tired rock&nroll references or Sox love at all...I do miss Keith Law and Buster Olney's blogs though..may need to re-up the $40 or whatever it costs..

[167] It's really only four years because Granderson only had 174 PAs in 2005. I guess Granderson could have peaked at age-26, but I think it is far more likely that his 2007-2008 production is where his future lies. Of course, even at his 2009 level Granderson is still a valuable player.

[169] Gammons was pretty much phased out at ESPN, so I can see why he decided to leave. Hopefully, he wont fill a major role at the MLB Network because his reporting skills seem to be in serious decline.

[175] That's more like it. Gammons had reverted to being a Red Sox fan over the past few years, so it makes sense that he was draw a paycheck from them.